I had a Powermac G4 with 1.75 Gigs and a single 1.25 Ghz CPU. It felt slow under 10.5. Yes, Time machine was neat. Yes, it was nice to have all your files indexed by content. But all of these background processes kept the CPU pegged for a good fraction of the hour, every hour. Compilations took longer than they should. Web Browsing wasn't really fluid.
Now, I have a machine with two cores, 8 GB Ram, background processes galore, 2 monitors, and a MPEG-4 compression workload. OK, it won't run the latest games with aplomb, mostly because I lack a real video card. But it doesn't feel slow-- ever. I'm happy with the way the computer schedules things-- I don't need to shut down processes because are interfering with what I'd like to do. That's what "multitasking well" means, in my book.
OSX 10.5 and its successors are optimized for more than one core, and a lot more memory than the eMac was designed to have.
Try putting Windows 7 or Vista on your Windows XP boxes.
Macs use a lot of memory-- "Safari" consumes 200 MB on my machine, and "Safari Web Content" is consuming 530 MB. A process owned by my virus checker is using 128 MB. This is real memory, not virtual. 1 gigabyte is "Wired". But what do I care-- my machine has 8GB to play with. More Ram is cheap-- unless your machine is already maxed out.
Of course they can multitask. They timeslice.. Don't give me some bullshit about the chips being single core. My own mac only has two cores, but effectively juggles 392 threads, and 77 processes.
However, Time Machine really does start to become a burden on G4s.
1650x1050 isn't that much of an improvement over 1280x960, unless you're planning on running several programs simultaneously, And the eMacs, with a practical RAM limit of 2 GB, and a single core, aren't going to be doing much of that.
With time, what we think of as "abuse" will become mere "use," and the qualifier "appropriate" will be slathered about rather liberally by those who wish to erode this distinction.
That assumes that the DVD was transferred competently in the first place. For instance, did you know that the Atreides uniforms (in David Lynch's Dune) are actually green, and not black?
Put your TV in stretch mode. The actors will look like linebackers (and will have more realistic body images as a result), but at least your TV won't be wasting space on black bars.
People want to read all manner of books, including erotica. The Kindle (or the Nook) happens to be ideal for this sort of thing, as there's no lurid cover to titillate passersby, no "plain brown envelope" that turns out to nothing of the kind, no squeamish stockist, mainstream publisher or distributor in the position to decide what is "acceptable" and what it not,and no store clerk to take offense or make snide comments. It's just a book-- not a scarlet letter.
However, a lot of "specialist publishers" have been squeezed by credit card companies, partly because of the chargebacks. It's a pain for honest customers.
Both the original 35mm print and the first VHS and DVD releases maintained a dark, low-contrast look. Take Ash’s epic flight from evil through the preposterously large interior of the cabin in the woods. In early, gloomier releases, the top of the cabin interiors fades away to darkness, completing the cinematic illusion. In the Blu-ray release, the contrast has been increased, and the space where the set ends and the high school gymnasium they were filming in begins is clearly visible.
I haven't much noticed this in more recent releases, but back in the "early days of blu-ray", the studios would try so hard to erase the film grain that all of the actors and actresses would take on an inauthetic waxy quality-- no skin pores.
Because no one is going to sell a fixed lens camera that only does telephoto, or is only good for wide angle shots. They're going to try to sell a camera that compromises.
It's not wasteful if the cost savings associated with using a slightly less capable chipset and licensing fewer patents are dwarfed by the expense of setting up another manufacturing line.
1080p is, essentially very similar to 1080i--except that the reverse telecine is done for you.The advantage of bluray is that it has more bandwidth for video-- (and better codecs)-- so it doesn't start to pixilate every time there's a slight bit of action on screen.
When your PBS station decides to send 1 HD, and three SD streams over a single ATSC channel, the "Ken Burns" effect gets to be annoying.
Adams is closer to the Pointy Haired Boss than he ever was to Dilbert, or Wally. Perhaps he's sympathetic to the engineering perspective, but his bachelors was in economics, and he has a MBA.
3D Television is great. You can have a great big TV blaring away in your living room, and all of your flatmates, not having goggles of their own, will think it's a blurry mess. They'll leave you in peace.
3D Sound is easy, as long as you can avoid tripping over the speaker wires.
Essentially, the settlers in Plymouth Plantation were all working for investors back in London. It was the corporation, not the settlers themselves, who allotted the land. They had debts to pay, and sometimes providing a return on investment came before luxuries like food.
The center laments that works published in 1955 aren't being released. But in fact, the public domain won't expand at all, except through explicit renunciation of copyright.
Here's why.
Works published before 1923 are in the public domain. Works published between 1923 and 1963, provided that the copyright has been renewed, are copyrighted until 95 years after publication-- 2018 at a minimum.
You might expect that the works of Virginia Woolf, for example, would be freed from copyright,as it has been 70 years since her death in 1941. But her post 1923 works will not enter the public domain until 2019. Provided, of course, that the copyright terms are not further extended in to the far future.
Slashdot Mirror
Figure $70-80 for five hours of game time, plus downloadable content.
I had a Powermac G4 with 1.75 Gigs and a single 1.25 Ghz CPU. It felt slow under 10.5. Yes, Time machine was neat. Yes, it was nice to have all your files indexed by content. But all of these background processes kept the CPU pegged for a good fraction of the hour, every hour. Compilations took longer than they should. Web Browsing wasn't really fluid.
Now, I have a machine with two cores, 8 GB Ram, background processes galore, 2 monitors, and a MPEG-4 compression workload. OK, it won't run the latest games with aplomb, mostly because I lack a real video card. But it doesn't feel slow-- ever. I'm happy with the way the computer schedules things-- I don't need to shut down processes because are interfering with what I'd like to do. That's what "multitasking well" means, in my book.
OSX 10.5 and its successors are optimized for more than one core, and a lot more memory than the eMac was designed to have.
Try putting Windows 7 or Vista on your Windows XP boxes.
Macs use a lot of memory-- "Safari" consumes 200 MB on my machine, and "Safari Web Content" is consuming 530 MB. A process owned by my virus checker is using 128 MB. This is real memory, not virtual. 1 gigabyte is "Wired". But what do I care-- my machine has 8GB to play with. More Ram is cheap-- unless your machine is already maxed out.
Of course they can multitask. They timeslice.. Don't give me some bullshit about the chips being single core. My own mac only has two cores, but effectively juggles 392 threads, and 77 processes.
However, Time Machine really does start to become a burden on G4s.
I'm not sure what you mean by BIOS level CLI--but Apple, if it wanted to be stylish at such a low level, would probably use Garamond over Times Roman.
1650x1050 isn't that much of an improvement over 1280x960, unless you're planning on running several programs simultaneously, And the eMacs, with a practical RAM limit of 2 GB, and a single core, aren't going to be doing much of that.
both have appropriate uses.
With time, what we think of as "abuse" will become mere "use," and the qualifier "appropriate" will be slathered about rather liberally by those who wish to erode this distinction.
Because Lynch wanted it this way.
Why do you like the long version, anyway?
That assumes that the DVD was transferred competently in the first place. For instance, did you know that the Atreides uniforms (in David Lynch's Dune) are actually green, and not black?
Stanley Kubrick shot 2001 using Super Panavision 70-- no mattes, spherical lenses.
Voyager: These are the voyages of the Flying Toilet Seat.
Put your TV in stretch mode. The actors will look like linebackers (and will have more realistic body images as a result), but at least your TV won't be wasting space on black bars.
Because bluray is usually 1080p, not 720p?
People want to read all manner of books, including erotica. The Kindle (or the Nook) happens to be ideal for this sort of thing, as there's no lurid cover to titillate passersby, no "plain brown envelope" that turns out to nothing of the kind, no squeamish stockist, mainstream publisher or distributor in the position to decide what is "acceptable" and what it not,and no store clerk to take offense or make snide comments. It's just a book-- not a scarlet letter.
However, a lot of "specialist publishers" have been squeezed by credit card companies, partly because of the chargebacks. It's a pain for honest customers.
Evil Dead II Blu-ray Reviewed: I miss the murkiness
Both the original 35mm print and the first VHS and DVD releases maintained a dark, low-contrast look. Take Ash’s epic flight from evil through the preposterously large interior of the cabin in the woods. In early, gloomier releases, the top of the cabin interiors fades away to darkness, completing the cinematic illusion. In the Blu-ray release, the contrast has been increased, and the space where the set ends and the high school gymnasium they were filming in begins is clearly visible.
I haven't much noticed this in more recent releases, but back in the "early days of blu-ray", the studios would try so hard to erase the film grain that all of the actors and actresses would take on an inauthetic waxy quality-- no skin pores.
It's getting difficult to find SACDs and DVDAs in the stores today. Everyone's jumping ship to Bluray Audio.
Because no one is going to sell a fixed lens camera that only does telephoto, or is only good for wide angle shots. They're going to try to sell a camera that compromises.
It's not wasteful if the cost savings associated with using a slightly less capable chipset and licensing fewer patents are dwarfed by the expense of setting up another manufacturing line.
1080p is, essentially very similar to 1080i--except that the reverse telecine is done for you.The advantage of bluray is that it has more bandwidth for video-- (and better codecs)-- so it doesn't start to pixilate every time there's a slight bit of action on screen.
When your PBS station decides to send 1 HD, and three SD streams over a single ATSC channel, the "Ken Burns" effect gets to be annoying.
Adams is closer to the Pointy Haired Boss than he ever was to Dilbert, or Wally. Perhaps he's sympathetic to the engineering perspective, but his bachelors was in economics, and he has a MBA.
3D Television is great. You can have a great big TV blaring away in your living room, and all of your flatmates, not having goggles of their own, will think it's a blurry mess. They'll leave you in peace.
3D Sound is easy, as long as you can avoid tripping over the speaker wires.
I'm not sure. I'm referring to a James Bond film from 1985-- Roger Moore as Bond versus Christopher Walken as Max Zorin.
No
Essentially, the settlers in Plymouth Plantation were all working for investors back in London. It was the corporation, not the settlers themselves, who allotted the land. They had debts to pay, and sometimes providing a return on investment came before luxuries like food.
Have you not seen A View to a Kill?
The center laments that works published in 1955 aren't being released. But in fact, the public domain won't expand at all, except through explicit renunciation of copyright.
Here's why.
Works published before 1923 are in the public domain.
Works published between 1923 and 1963, provided that the copyright has been renewed, are copyrighted until 95 years after publication-- 2018 at a minimum.
You might expect that the works of Virginia Woolf, for example, would be freed from copyright,as it has been 70 years since her death in 1941. But her post 1923 works will not enter the public domain until 2019. Provided, of course, that the copyright terms are not further extended in to the far future.